witesoxfan Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:43 AM) Even though he is arguably the best baseball player alive and would GREATLY improve the Sox' chances of winning? In years 2-4 of his deal. Then you get to 5-10 and you end up with a player like Alex Rodriguez who can't stay healthy and can't produce when healthy, yet you're still paying them $25 million a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:43 AM) Even though he is arguably the best baseball player alive and would GREATLY improve the Sox' chances of winning? And he would destroy our chances of winning for somewhere around a half of a decade. Baseball isn't just about spending money. You do have to be smart in doing so. Look no further than the Cubs. Deals to Zambrano and Soriano helped them win games and make a playoff appearance in the short term. How do you think they feel about those deals right now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:46 AM) In years 2-4 of his deal. Then you get to 5-10 and you end up with a player like Alex Rodriguez who can't stay healthy and can't produce when healthy, yet you're still paying them $25 million a year. Arod is another great example here. He still has 5 years and $114 million remaining on his deal that he signed when he was the best player in all of baseball and coming off of a season where he hit .314, slugged .645, had an OPS of 1.067, and hit 54 homers while driving in 156. Think the Yankees would like a do-over on that one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:49 AM) Arod is another great example here. He still has 5 years and $114 million remaining on his deal that he signed when he was the best player in all of baseball and coming off of a season where he hit .314, slugged .645, had an OPS of 1.067, and hit 54 homers while driving in 156. Think the Yankees would like a do-over on that one? And that isn't including his homer bonuses, if he gets to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:35 AM) Your opinion please...let's say that (for whatever reason) the Angels offered Albert Pujols to the Sox for Paul Konerko, straight up, no financial incentives. Do you think Reinsdorf would okay the deal? In 5 years you would be crying about Reinsdorf handcuffing the Sox finances and making it impossible for them to make any other moves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANS Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 just close this thread already....jeez be patient people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Not to mention Pujols' plate discipline has been falling precipitously the last several seasons. A huge chunk of his value over Konerko is not in batting but in fielding and baserunning. Probably not a good idea to take on $200M for a more agile first baseman. Edited January 4, 2013 by 3E8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 12:49 PM) Arod is another great example here. He still has 5 years and $114 million remaining on his deal that he signed when he was the best player in all of baseball and coming off of a season where he hit .314, slugged .645, had an OPS of 1.067, and hit 54 homers while driving in 156. Think the Yankees would like a do-over on that one? Didn't they win their world series after signing him to that deal? If so...I'd think the answer is no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZionrulZ Posted January 4, 2013 Author Share Posted January 4, 2013 In 5 years you would be crying about Reinsdorf handcuffing the Sox finances and making it impossible for them to make any other moves. There is VERY little difference between not being able to spend money and not spending money. I guess I'm in the minority here; I believe that an owner's primary responsibilty is to put the best possible team on the field that he can. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 01:11 PM) There is VERY little difference between not being able to spend money and not spending money. I guess I'm in the minority here; I believe that an owner's primary responsibilty is to put the best possible team on the field that he can. Period. We did that 2 years ago, it failed. The Sox are still spending quite a bit of money, but they aren't going to ruin the business part of it in order for a crappy shot at winning for a 1-2 year period anymore. They are in it for the long haul now, to win and make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoIL Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (CyAcosta41 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:29 AM) Bingo! I've always been a huge KW fan. Long suffering Sox fan that I've been (remember a Sox-Yankee game as a 5 year old in 1963), I loved that in KW we had a GM who aggressively went balls-out, pedal-to-the-metal, and clearly wanted "it" as badly as the most devout fan. Where he got himself into a bit of trouble is that he seemed to have become a relative easy "read" for other GMs. Like a bad QB, he stared down his intended target, or telegraphed his punches (pick your sports metaphor), and the other GMs took advantage of him by often extracting sometimes incredible overpays. Loved the passion, sometimes hated the execution. Enter Hahn. I wanted KW to have more of a poker face, to have some cunning and guile, to exercise patience. Transparency and all those leaks leading to deals (with overpayments) didn't get us very far in most cases. It's far too early (not to mention unfair) to jump to any sort of conclusion about Rick Hahn. Let's see what the man does. Let him have a track record. Let's watch with greater perspective so we can fairly label his style. In my opinion, criticizing the man for not having a "pulse" is absurd. KW didn't have a pulse, he bled publicly. The time was right for a change, but it's far too early to tell what we have in Rick Hahn. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 01:11 PM) There is VERY little difference between not being able to spend money and not spending money. I guess I'm in the minority here; I believe that an owner's primary responsibilty is to put the best possible team on the field that he can. Period. Sabotaging the team down the road with bad contracts isn't putting the best team on the field. Going out and spending all your money just because you can isn't visionary, its reactionary, and it will cripple your franchise eventually. All you have to do is look around baseball to see teams who have been in contract hell. How is it working out for the Marlins? The Cubs? The Mets? The Red Sox? The Yankees? What do the Tigers and Angels have to show for the massive contracts they have handed out lately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 02:21 PM) Sabotaging the team down the road with bad contracts isn't putting the best team on the field. Going out and spending all your money just because you can isn't visionary, its reactionary, and it will cripple your franchise eventually. All you have to do is look around baseball to see teams who have been in contract hell. How is it working out for the Marlins? The Cubs? The Mets? The Red Sox? The Yankees? What do the Tigers and Angels have to show for the massive contracts they have handed out lately? The Yankees won the world series the year after they signed Captain Cheesesburger and Teixeira, and continue getting division titles out of them. The Tigers have 2 straight playoff appearances, including a world series visit. The Cubs got 2 playoff births that they needed, and more importantly, got the team sold at a time of maximum revenue thanks to those playoff births. Obviously, spending money is no guarantee...but it's clearly complicated. The Tigers and Yankees have recently been very successful at getting to the playoffs based on large spending totals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 01:11 PM) There is VERY little difference between not being able to spend money and not spending money. I guess I'm in the minority here; I believe that an owner's primary responsibilty is to put the best possible team on the field that he can. Period. Being a minority owner, albeit the Chairman, he needs to answer to the rest of the board and the majority owners. Singling out Reinsdorf for all of the money matters isn't accurate. Sacrificing the long benefit for short term gains is not a good way to operste a baseball team. You need consistent winning to get to the playoffs regularly to have a chance. There are too many variables for success in baseball to sell out for a single season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Zelig Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (SoIL @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 01:15 PM) Well said. Hey man, we will be in town next Saturday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZionrulZ Posted January 4, 2013 Author Share Posted January 4, 2013 The Yankees won the world series the year after they signed Captain Cheesesburger and Teixeira, and continue getting division titles out of them. The Tigers have 2 straight playoff appearances, including a world series visit. The Cubs got 2 playoff births that they needed, and more importantly, got the team sold at a time of maximum revenue thanks to those playoff births. Obviously, spending money is no guarantee...but it's clearly complicated. The Tigers and Yankees have recently been very successful at getting to the playoffs based on large spending totals. At least someone seems to get my point. I don't advocate spending for the sake of spending, but, if your team has holes, and there are available players out there that can fill those holes, IMO ownership has to take a hard look at these "hole fillers" and do what it has to do to get them. I don't worry about "prospects", most never work out anyway. I don't care about 5-10 years down the road; I'm more interested in the 2013-2016. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 02:57 PM) At least someone seems to get my point. I don't advocate spending for the sake of spending, but, if your team has holes, and there are available players out there that can fill those holes, IMO ownership has to take a hard look at these "hole fillers" and do what it has to do to get them. I don't worry about "prospects", most never work out anyway. I don't care about 5-10 years down the road; I'm more interested in the 2013-2016. There really has not been a lot worth spending on during this free agency season. When there is and it makes sense, they have done so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 02:57 PM) At least someone seems to get my point. I don't advocate spending for the sake of spending, but, if your team has holes, and there are available players out there that can fill those holes, IMO ownership has to take a hard look at these "hole fillers" and do what it has to do to get them. I don't worry about "prospects", most never work out anyway. I don't care about 5-10 years down the road; I'm more interested in the 2013-2016. If you are interested in 2016, you don't get there in good shape by adding deals that will hurt the team in 2016. I know the whole "prospects don't work out" mantra, but long term contracts don't exactly have a great track record either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 03:02 PM) There really has not been a lot worth spending on during this free agency season. When there is and it makes sense, they have done so. Our biggest holes in FA were 3B and RHSP. They did both at pretty intelligent prices and contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 02:57 PM) At least someone seems to get my point. I don't advocate spending for the sake of spending, but, if your team has holes, and there are available players out there that can fill those holes, IMO ownership has to take a hard look at these "hole fillers" and do what it has to do to get them. I don't worry about "prospects", most never work out anyway. I don't care about 5-10 years down the road; I'm more interested in the 2013-2016. Yes you do. You have been doing it all offseason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 How about going after Kyle Lohse and using Gavin Floyd as trade bait and also save his $9M or so salary to use towards signing Lohse. What kind of price is Lohse going to command for say a 3 Yr contract? I know Lohse's agent is Boras but how does Hahn deal with that guy instead of KW? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Signing Kyle would mean giving up a 1st round pick, and the slots bonus allocation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 04:17 PM) How about going after Kyle Lohse and using Gavin Floyd as trade bait and also save his $9M or so salary to use towards signing Lohse. What kind of price is Lohse going to command for say a 3 Yr contract? I know Lohse's agent is Boras but how does Hahn deal with that guy instead of KW? It's worth noting that Lohse was extended a qualifying offer and turned it down, so signing him and trading Floyd would send our first-round pick to St. Louis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Plus the draft allowance as well. Kyle Lohse is going to have difficulty finding a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 04:20 PM) Plus the draft allowance as well. Kyle Lohse is going to have difficulty finding a job. some place that has already given up its first round pick to sign a FA, like Anaheim or Cleveland, could be a good fit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.